Nella fabbrica della modernita, Scienza & Politica 2016

Università di Bologna

Western Sidney University

sandro.mezzadra@unibo.it

b.neilson@westernsydney.edu.au

Abstract:

A B S T R A C T Il saggio affronta l’intreccio di Stato e capitale come potenze che dominano la modernità, ponendosi da subito su una scala globale. Questo intreccio interseca inevitabilmente la storia dell’impero che, lungi dall’essere solamente il preceden-te dello Stato, rappresenta una forma composta di sovranità stratificate e spazi giuridici variegati. Il concetto di Stato che emerge dal saggio si discosta quindi dalla concezione weberiana, che prevale nella letteratura contemporanea. Rispetto alla definizione data da Weber, infatti, la territorialità dello Stato attuale è turbata e alterata, tanto dal vacillare dei suoi confini quanto dall’emergere di nuove formazioni territoriali, sia all’interno sia attraverso i confini. La sguardo globale sullo Stato complica, inoltre, il suo rapporto con la nazione e l’idea del monopolio della produzione normativa e della forza fisica. Quel che ne risulta è un’immagine molto più frammentaria e mobile della storia dello Stato moderno. The essay tackles the intertwining of State and capital as powers that dominate modernity, locating on a global scale right from the start. This intertwining intersects inevitably the history of empire, which, rather than just being the precedent of the State, represents a composite form of layered sovereignties and multifaceted juridical spaces. The concept of the State that emerges from the essay moves away from the broadly meant Weberian conception, which is prevailing in contemporary literature. In contrast with the Weberian definition, indeed, the territoriality of the State is unsettled and altered both by the swaying of its borders and by the emergence of new territorial formations inside and across the borders. The global view on the State complicates its relationship with the nation and the idea of the monopoly of the legislative production and legitimate physical strength. The result is a much more fragmented and movable image of the history of modern State.

SCIENZA&POLITICA , vol. XXVIII, no. 55, 2016, pp. 73-91 DOI: 10.6092/issn.1825-9618/6610 ISSN: 1825-9618 73
SCIENZA&POLITICA  per una storia delle dottrine
Nella fabbrica della modernità: il capitale lo Stato e l’impero
 
In the Factory of Modernity: Capital State Empire.
 
Sandro Mezzadra
– 
 Brett Neilson
 

On the multiple frontiers of extraction: excavating contemporary capitalism, Cultural Studies 2017

Abstract:

Understanding the intensification and expansion of extractive industries in contemporary capitalism requires an approach attentive not only to the literal forms of extraction prevalent in mining and agribusiness but also to new fronts of extraction emerging in activities such as data mining and biocapitalism. This article introduces the concept of operations of capital to trace connections between the expansive logic of extraction and capitalist activity in the domains of logistics and finance. Arguing that extractive operations are at large across these domains, we explore their relevance for capital’s relation with its multiple outsides. The resulting analysis provides a basis for mapping struggles against the changing forms of dispossession and exploitation enabled by extraction.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcus20
Download by:
 [Western Sydney University]
Date:
 17 March 2017, At: 03:36
Cultural Studies
ISSN: 0950-2386 (Print) 1466-4348 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcus20
On the multiple frontiers of extraction: excavatingcontemporary capitalism
Sandro Mezzadra & Brett Neilson
To cite this article:
 Sandro Mezzadra & Brett Neilson (2017): On the multiple frontiers of extraction: excavating contemporary capitalism, Cultural Studies
To link to this article:

Non finisce qui (Marco Travaglio)

La Legge NON è UGUALE per tutti.

Triskel182

Il caso Minzolini, che poi è il caso “Parlamento fuorilegge e sedizioso”, è rapidamente scomparso dalle prime pagine dei giornali. Ma non può finire così. E i rappresentanti delle istituzioni che ne hanno a cuore il buon nome, a cominciare dal garante supremo della Costituzione Sergio Mattarella e dai presidenti delle Camere Piero Grasso e Laura Boldrini, possono fare molto perché non finisca così. Il 12 novembre 2015, ben 15 mesi fa, l’ex direttore Augusto Minzolini viene condannato in via definitiva a 2 anni e 6 mesi di reclusione (pena principale) e all’interdizione dai pubblici uffici della stessa durata (pena accessoria), per il reato di peculato.

View original post 767 altre parole

 Tell Your MEP to Stand Up and Save the Link

And we were right.

In the European Parliament MEPs have recently been turning against the link tax and mandatory online filtering in unprecedented ways.[1]

One key decision maker, Therese Comodini Cachia, has even put forward plans to put a stop to both censorship machines and the link tax. She’s responsible for drafting Parliament’s position on the law: this is huge! [2]

Big industry groups are scrambling to reverse our progress, and lobbyists are branding her as controversial.

Now key MEPs have just 10 days to put forward amendments to Cachia’s plan. With a crucial debate happening this week, you can reach MEPs — including representatives on this influential committee!

Your voice is powerful. Please send your MEPs a letter today to ask them to speak up for you and in favour of removing Europe’s #LinkTax (Article 11) and upload filter #CensorshipMachine (Article 13).

It’s easy to underestimate the impact we’re having right now in a big bureaucratic process.

Publisher lobbyists are rounding back to the failed argument that people “only read the headlines and snippets” and that not enough of us “click on links”.[3] They forget that links are foundational to the web, like the signposts to get you where you’re going.

They don’t understand that linking is what makes the web work, allowing us all to access and share information. Restricting links restricts the function of the Internet and closes people out of the system. But MEPs are getting it.

Speak up now: Tell your MEP where you stand so they can represent *your views* in the big debate this week.

Thanks for all that you do.

Best wishes,
Ruth

P.S. We are having a Reddit AMA tomorrow on all things EU copyright! If you want to learn more about what’s happening, you can ask me live on 22nd March at 5pm CET here: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/

Footnotes

[1] Parliament to defang EU copyright reform: EU Observer

[2] Good news! The European Parliament has just dealt a major blow to the Commission’s Link Tax plans: OpenMedia

[3] European Publishers Council statement.

OpenMedia
We are an award-winning network of people and organizations working to safeguard the possibilities of the open Internet. We work toward informed and participatory digital policy.
You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

It’s Official: You’re Paying for Trump’s Wall, Twice

It’s Official: You’re Paying for Trump’s Wall, Twice

“We’re going to build a big, beautiful wall—and Mexico is gonna pay for it,” was one of Donald Trump’s campaign mantras. However, as Americans who don’t have political short-term memory loss will remember, politicians break promises once they’re elected. Such is the case with Trump’s promise to make Mexico pay for his “great” wall.

The reality is that Americans will wind up paying for the tariffs through higher food and consumer prices.

You’re paying for it, not Mexico, and Trump’s newly released White House budget has made it official.

The Trump budget blueprint, released late Wednesday, calls for taxpayers to fund $4.1 billion through 2018 for Trump’s wall along the southern border of the United States. But that’s just for the initial construction. According to DHS estimates, the overall cost to taxpayers could be $21.6 billion, a figure that will likely be even higher considering the government’s penchant for going over budget and deadlines.

But wait, there’s more. Because Mexico has made it abundantly clear that it will not pay for America’s “great” wall, Trump has floated the idea of slapping a 20 percent tariff on all goods imported from Mexico to make up for the cost. This idea may sound legitimate if you disregard the laws of economics, but the reality is that Americans will wind up paying for the tariffs through higher food and consumer prices. As Anti-Media reported in January:

Many food products that people living in the U.S. enjoy, like fruits, vegetables, beef, and avocados, could be taxed an extra 20 percent under Trump’s plan. Mexican beer like Corona? 20 percent. Tequila, too. Cars, electronic equipment, machines, engines, pumps, oil, medical and technical equipment, furniture, lighting, signs, plastics, gems, precious metals, coins, iron, and steel products are Mexico’s top exports, which could be taxed 20 percent more.”

In response to the proposed tariffs, Mexico stated it would return tariffs—or border taxes—on U.S. goods going into Mexico, which would hurt American businesses and workers. So basically, you’ll be paying for the wall twice, or possibly three times if you are employed or own a business that relies on exports to Mexico.

At a time when illegal immigration to the U.S. from Mexico has reached a 40-year low, and the supposed economic benefits of the wall are nowhere to be found (though its negative effects are already being felt), many people are likely left wondering if it’s even worth it.

Reprinted from The Anti-Media.

 


Nick Bernabe

Nick Bernabe is the owner and lead editor of the website TheAntiMedia.org, an activist, blogger, and the founder and spokesman of the March Against Monsanto movement. He is also a guest contributor to The Mind Unleashed.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

B and S. Karakayali (2017) The volatility of the discourse on refugees in Germany, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies

Authors
Bastian VollmerBastian  Vollmer

Abstract:

The anti-immigration continuum of public attitude-mediapolitics has undergone changes in the course of the “refugee crisis” in Germany. By examining migrant representations and discursive events taking place in 2015 and early 2016, we will show the volatility of the recent discourse on refugees. A historical/critical discourse analysis will show how new topoi arose and old topoi of the security/power paradigm have lastly reconquered the discourse. Using newspaper coverage, we discuss discursive events in three main sections: borders, arrival, and presence. Discursive shifts have taken place that have had an impact on the configuration of migration categories such as migrants or refugees.

Download PDF

El coste humano de la hipocresía europea

 

Hoy se cumple un año del vergonzoso acuerdo entre la Unión Europea y Turquía, que ha provocado el sufrimiento de miles de personas refugiadas. No es el único acuerdo por el que estas personas corren peligro

El investigador de AI sobre migración, Matteo de Bellis, analiza las terribles consecuencias que la colaboración entre Italia y Libia en materia migratoria está provocando, y nos demuestra, una vez más, el desprecio de los líderes europeos por quienes huyen de la guerra y la persecución

17/03/2017 – 20:37h

Ocultar publi X
PUBLICIDAD

Personas migrantes en su viaje a Europa © Emilio Morenatti
Personas migrantes en su viaje a Europa © Emilio Morenatti

Cuando vio barcos a lo lejos, Issa supo que viviría. Era julio de 2014 y había pasado horas en el mar, aferrado a un bidón de gasolina de plástico, mientras mujeres, hombres, niños y niñas se ahogaban a su alrededor. La pequeña embarcación de goma que se suponía que los iba a llevar a todos a Italia se había hundido sólo dos horas después de partir de la costa libia. De las 137 personas que, según afirma Issa, iban a bordo, sólo sobrevivieron 49.

A Issa, de Burkina Faso, no lo rescató un barco que pasaba, sino que lo recogió la guardia costera libia. En lugar de llevarlo a un puerto seguro en Italia, como él esperaba, lo devolvieron a Libia, donde lo entregaron a la policía. Según su relato, estuvo encerrado durante meses en condiciones terribles mientras era golpeado regularmente por policías que le pedían dinero a cambio de su liberación.

“Me ataban las manos a la espalda”, cuenta. “Estaba tumbado en el suelo boca abajo, y me golpeaban en la espalda con un cinturón y con cables eléctricos.”

Sólo cuando la familia de Issa logró reunir 625.000 francos CFA (unas 900 libras esterlinas) fue finalmente puesto en libertad.

Migrantes en Niger esperan el viaje a través del Sahel © Ali Abdou
Migrantes en Niger esperan el viaje a través del Sahel © Ali Abdou

En septiembre del año pasado trató de llegar a Italia de nuevo pero, después de tres días en el mar, la embarcación en la que viajaba arribó de vuelta a costas libias. “Nos detuvieron a nuestra llegada y nos llevaron a una cárcel en Trípoli, y dos semanas después nos trasladaron a la ciudad de Sabha. Supimos que los traficantes nos habían vendido“. Tras un mes de cautiverio, él y otros consiguieron escapar. “Nuestros secuestradores dispararon contra algunos. No sé si alguien murió“, cuenta.

Esta es sólo una de las historias de las personas a las que entrevistamos durante una reciente visita a Agadez, una ciudad en el centro de Níger que se ha convertido en punto de tránsito para personas refugiadas y migrantes procedentes del África subsahariana que tratan de llegar a Europa a través de Libia, así como para aquellas que regresan tras haber sufrido abusos atroces allí.

Estas personas repiten historias desgarradoras que he escuchado de boca de cientos de personas refugiadas y migrantes a las que he entrevistado en centros de acogida de Italia. Muchas de ellas habían estado detenidas durante meses en Libia, donde, según afirman, fueron torturadas, golpeadas, violadas y humilladas. La palabra que se me quedó clavada en la mente, utilizada por tantas de esas personas para describir su experiencia, es “ infierno“.

Los gobiernos europeos están invirtiendo decenas de millones en medidas contra la inmigración en Níger, apoyando, entre otras cosas, operaciones de la policía nigerina para detener el flujo de camionetas que avanzan hacia la frontera libia. Dicen que estas medidas son necesarias para proteger a los viajeros. Tal como me dijo un diplomático en Níger: “Nos preocupa la gente, está esclavizada en Libia. Tenemos que detenerlo. No podemos aceptar que la gente pierda la vida y sufra semejantes abusos”.

Pero, si la seguridad de estas personas es realmente su principal preocupación, ¿por qué esos mismos gobiernos no escatiman esfuerzos para contribuir a que las autoridades libias intercepten a quienes intentan venir a Europa? De hecho, en los últimos meses, las instituciones y los gobiernos europeos han incrementado su cooperación con la guardia costera libia para ayudarla a interceptar a personas y llevarlas de vuelta a Libia, apartando la vista de los terribles abusos que esas personas sufrirán allí. Tan sólo en las últimas semanas, Italia ha firmado un nuevo acuerdo sobre control de migración con Libia, y los líderes europeos han declarado reiteradamente –sin ir más lejos, la semana pasada, en el Consejo Europeo– su intención de aumentar su colaboración.

Las acciones actuales para reforzar la guardia costera libia –mediante la provisión de barcos y formación– podrían salvar vidas en el mar. Pero, sin unos esfuerzos significativos para impedir tanto la detención automática de las personas refugiadas y migrantes interceptadas en el mar por los guardacostas como los malos tratos a los que estas personas son sometidas sistemáticamente en Libia, y para proporcionar acceso a protección a quienes piden asilo, esas medidas son un arma de doble filo.

Dibujos sobre las torturas y los riesgos que sufren las personas migrantes y refugiadas en Libia © AI
Dibujos sobre las torturas y los riesgos que sufren las personas migrantes y refugiadas en Libia © AI

Con cada acuerdo que se anuncia, los líderes europeos transmiten una señal clara de que, al no mantener a estas personas fuera de Libia, realmente no les preocupa la protección de hombres, mujeres, niños y niñas. Al donar barcos a unos guardacostas acusados de actuar en connivencia con traficantes y de golpear a las personas interceptadas en el mar, y al apoyar centros en los que se detiene arbitrariamente y se tortura a gente, su auténtica intención queda clara. De hecho, el impedir que la gente llegue irregularmente a Europa ocupa ahora un lugar tan alto en su agenda que al parecer merece la pena pagar cualquier precio. Las terribles consecuencias de esta ciega actitud son –como Issa sabe demasiado bien– muy reales.

Libia está en medio de una crisis humanitaria, con gran parte del país bajo el control de hecho de grupos armados y bandas criminales. Con un poder judicial débil, la anarquía se ha convertido en norma, y la población civil corre grave peligro de sufrir abusos contra los derechos humanos. En este contexto, las personas refugiadas y migrantes corren peligro de detención arbitraria, secuestro, malos tratos, violencia sexual y explotación. Aunque los centros de detención en los que se recluye a las personas refugiadas y migrantes están teóricamente gestionados por el gobierno libio, de hecho la mayoría están en manos de grupos armados. Estos grupos usan la presión y la intimidación para que los funcionarios les den vía libre en las redes de tráfico de personas.

Si a los líderes de la UE les importaran de verdad los abusos que sufren las personas refugiadas y migrantes en Libia, les ofrecerían rutas seguras y legales a Europa, especialmente poniendo la admisión humanitaria en Europa a disposición de los miles de personas necesitadas de protección. Y algo crucial: la cooperación con las autoridades libias se centraría en apoyar las medidas para proteger los derechos humanos de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en el país, empezando por poner fin a su detención arbitraria y sus malos tratos.

Tras “rescatarlos”, se está encarcelando, explotando, torturando y violando a mujeres, hombres, niños y niñas. El hecho de que las decisiones tomadas por los gobiernos europeos contribuyan, de forma directa o indirecta, a alimentar estos abusos debería horrorizarnos a todos.

Sorgente:http://www.eldiario.es/amnistiaespana/coste-humano-hipocresia-europea_6_623347679.html

WWF: cambiamento climatico, tutti i rischi per l’Italia.

di Floriana Bulfon. Espresso

Un nuovo rapporto mette in luce tutti i rischi per la salute e per la Terra. I paesi del Mediterraneo, Italia in testa, è rischiano di più: dall’aumento delle temperature ai disastri naturali, all’esposizione ai fattori di rischio ambientale. Fattori che si stima abbiamo già causato, in tutta Europa, la morte di 1,4 milioni di persone. leggi

Ecco le banche che finanziano la violazione dei diritti umani e delle norme ambientali

5 MINUTI PER L'AMBIENTE

La campagna “Non con i miei soldi” punta il dito contro le banche che continuano a finanziare la violazione dei diritti umani e delle norme ambientali. A stigmatizzare il fenomeno è anche il rapporto “Dirty profits” di Facing Finance.9499-10239

Per il quinto anno consecutivo Facing Finance ha pubblicato un report sulle violazioni delle norme e degli standard ambientali e sociali ad opera di multinazionali, evidenziando come troppo spesso le banche, così come i loro clienti, beneficiano dalla violazione dei diritti umani, dallo sfruttamento e dalla distruzione dell’ambiente e dalla corruzione associata a queste aziende. A stigmatizzare il fenomeno è anche la campagna “Non con i miei soldi”, che da anni fa informazione critica sulla finanza italiana e internazionale. «La dimensione delle transazioni finanziarie, secondo Facing Finance, supera i 52 miliardi di euro – spiega Claudia Vago di “Non con i miei soldi” – Il report “Dirty Profits” (Profitti sporchi)…

View original post 354 altre parole

Cosmopolitan Europe? Cosmopolitan justice against EU-centredness

Since the early 2000s, the concept of ‘cosmopolitan Europe’ (CE) has become popular among philosophers and sociologists as a ‘post-nationalist’ way to rethink and reform the European Union (EU) in an age of globalization. Thus, seeking its justification in the European cosmopolitan tradition as an answer to unrestrained nationalism in Europe, CE should make the EU pursue a vigorously cosmopolitan understanding of Europe as well as the world. The present article defends the claim that prevailing, EU-centred CE is morally flawed for uncritically presupposing the fundamental acceptability of the EU as a project that actually clashes with cosmopolitan justice. A threefold argument is developed. First, morally, cosmopolitanism is to be understood as a particularism-critical position that emphasizes global distributive justice. Second, from this moral cosmopolitan perspective, the EU is unjust for epitomizing ‘enlarged particularism’. Third, views of CE are unduly conservative for neglecting – neither acknowledging nor refuting – cosmopolitan justice while taking the EU’s basic defensibility as self-evident. The conclusion suggests that CE could only be a utopian, bottom-up view that advocates EU de-integration in favour of Europe-wide cooperation for a world more just in a cosmopolitan sense.

1. Introduction

A widespread belief exists that cosmopolitanism, rooted in Europe’s old universalist moral traditions, has been a key antidote to the excesses of nationalism in modern European history (Calhoun 2009 Calhoun, C. 2009. “Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies.” In The Sage Handbook of European Studies, edited by C. Rumford, 637654. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]). Notably European integration is seen as cosmopolitanism-inspired for its contribution to peace and prosperity on a continent long torn by nationalist warfare and French–German conflict. In the 1990s, with the rise of globalization, cosmopolitanism seemed to become a still more important aspect of European self-understanding. Europe has acquired leadership in theorizing on ‘reflexive modernization’, renewing neo-Kantian moral universalism, developing international law, advocating democracy and human rights, providing global financial aid and humanitarian assistance, and boosting global climate policy. Cosmopolitanism seems now also present in an intellectual assessment of the diversity globalization has brought to Europe (Calhoun 2009 Calhoun, C. 2009. “Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies.” In The Sage Handbook of European Studies, edited by C. Rumford, 637654. London: Sage. [Google Scholar], 638, 642, 645–647, 650; Eriksen 2006 Eriksen, E. O. 2006. “The EU – A Cosmopolitan Polity?Journal of European Public Policy 13: 252269. doi:10.1080/13501760500451683.[Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar], 62). Since the early 2000s, theorists have come to see the European Union (EU) as a ‘post-national’ upbeat to a cosmopolitan world order or to a European continent more radically open to difference (Brown 2014 Brown, G. W. 2014. “The European Union and Kant’s Idea of Cosmopolitan Right: Why the EU Is Not Cosmopolitan.” European Journal of International Relations 20: 671693. doi:10.1177/1354066113482991. [Google Scholar], 671–672; Eriksen 2014 Eriksen, E. O. 2014. The Normativity of the European Union. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar], 109; Habermas 2003 Habermas, J. 2003. “Towards a Cosmopolitan Europe: Making Sense of the EU.” Journal of Democracy 14: 86100. doi:10.1353/jod.2003.0077. [Google Scholar]; Beck and Grande 2007a Beck, U., and E. Grande. 2007a. Cosmopolitan Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar]; Calhoun 2009 Calhoun, C. 2009. “Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies.” In The Sage Handbook of European Studies, edited by C. Rumford, 637654. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]). Thus, the concept of ‘cosmopolitan Europe’ (CE) has gained academic popularity as a means to analyse Europe, notably the EU.

Does ‘EU-centred Europe’ (Calhoun 2009 Calhoun, C. 2009. “Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies.” In The Sage Handbook of European Studies, edited by C. Rumford, 637654. London: Sage. [Google Scholar], 645) have cosmopolitan potential, as CE theorists claim? One argument in favour is that the EU, the most promising post-national organization, is a model for other world regions. Since it accepts the moral authority of the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and multilateralism, the EU could be a hopeful path towards global justice (Eriksen 2006 Eriksen, E. O. 2006. “The EU – A Cosmopolitan Polity?Journal of European Public Policy 13: 252269. doi:10.1080/13501760500451683.[Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar], 260–266). Also, although the current EU is not Kantian-cosmopolitan, considering its inconsistent application of the freedoms of cosmopolitan right and the laws of hospitality to non-EU citizens and its outward human rights policies as distorted by dubious economic behaviour, a ‘truly cosmopolitan EU’ is believed to be possible once ‘these issues are more clearly addressed within the EU debate’ (Brown 2014 Brown, G. W. 2014. “The European Union and Kant’s Idea of Cosmopolitan Right: Why the EU Is Not Cosmopolitan.” European Journal of International Relations 20: 671693. doi:10.1177/1354066113482991. [Google Scholar], 687).

Yet serious grounds for scepticism also exist. Firstly, a cosmopolitan political community has never been a European integration priority (Baban 2013 Baban, F. 2013. “Cosmopolitan Europe: Border Crossings and Transnationalism in Europe.” Global Society 27: 217235. doi:10.1080/13600826.2012.762344.[Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar], 220). Also, contemporary cosmopolitans tend to regard Kantian hospitality as ‘a thin requirement of the responsibility we have towards each other as human beings’ (234). Moreover, there are the embarrassing consequences of the common agricultural policy: the EU’s consistently highest item of expenditure by far with high external tariffs, high export subsidies, and internal price support. This policy of food self-sufficiency has distorted the world food market, undermined the ability of poor countries to export their own agricultural products, and seriously contributed to global poverty (Malcolm 1995 Malcolm, N. 1995. “The Case against ‘Europe’.” Foreign Affairs 47: 5268. doi:10.2307/20047042. [Google Scholar], 56–58; Blair [2005] 2010 Blair, A. [2005] 2010. The European Union since 1945. Harlow: Pearson. [Google Scholar], 33–37; Caney 2006 Caney, S. 2006. “Global Justice: From Theory to Practice.” Globalizations 3: 121137. doi:10.1080/14747730600702816.[Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar], 127–128; Pogge 2010 Pogge, T. W. 2010. Politics as Usual: What Lies behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar], 206).11 One could add: the European history of exclusion, persecution, misplaced superiority, and dark colonialism (cf. Pasture 2015 Pasture, P. 2015. “Formations of European Modernity: Cosmopolitanism, Eurocentrism and the Uses of History.” International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity 3: 7390. doi:10.18352/hcm.477. [Google Scholar]).View all notes Overall, the primary EU goal is ‘global peace and security of Europeans in a broad sense’, rather than ‘global distributive justice’ as a conventional cosmopolitan concept (De Beus and Mak 2001 De Beus, J., and J. Mak. 2001. “The Missing European Public: A Note on the Ethics and Politics of Contemporary European Integration.” Acta Politica 36: 339357. [Google Scholar], 348; Beitz [1979] 1999 Beitz, C. R. [1979] 1999. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]). Thus, the EU as a regional polity is at least prima facie incompatible with cosmopolitan justice.

In this article, I aim to engage critically with the CE debate by discussing in more detail whether CE can be truly cosmopolitan. What I offer is a moral cosmopolitanism-based analysis of EU-centred CE, that is, a normative analysis that employs cosmopolitanism as a perspective on the question of the scope and content of moral obligation. Arguably, such an inquiry fits with the individualist egalitarianism of the (European) Enlightenment culture (Beitz 1999 Beitz, C. R. 1999. “Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism.” International Affairs 75: 515529. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00091. [Google Scholar], 518, 529). Specifically, the great inequalities in resources and wealth that characterize our ecologically limited world suggest a closer analysis of the friction between the EU – the centre of dominant CE – and global distributive justice. Thus, an adequate assessment of EU-centred CE accounts calls for an answer to the question whether this tension is merely prima facie or actually stronger. To this end, I treat the EU as a project of European unification, understanding it essentially as a historically developed, distinctive politico-economic organization that features core principles to be maintained by a characteristic set of institutions, laws, and policies.

Yet my adoption of a moral perspective requires further clarification, as several scholars involved in CE theorizing have criticized moral cosmopolitanism, its dominance notwithstanding, for being unduly abstract and individualist (Delanty 2006 Delanty, G. 2006. “The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory.” British Journal of Sociology 57: 2547. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00092.x. [Google Scholar], 28–29; Calhoun 2009 Calhoun, C. 2009. “Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies.” In The Sage Handbook of European Studies, edited by C. Rumford, 637654. London: Sage. [Google Scholar], 653). I do submit that the conventional view of the at least ordinarily overriding nature of moral considerations against other (e.g. self-interested, religious, legal) ones in determining how one should act holds for global as well as domestic relations (Stroud 1998 Stroud, S. 1998. “Moral Overridingness and Moral Theory.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79: 170189. doi:10.1111/papq.1998.79.issue-2. [Google Scholar]; Beitz [1979] 1999 Beitz, C. R. [1979] 1999. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar], especially 4–5, 179). Still, while my approach assumes the general academic primacy of (moral or political) philosophy, no matter how abstract or individualist its findings, it should not rule out the possibility that CE theorists offer convincing EU-related arguments for relativizing moral cosmopolitanism, since cosmopolitanism is contested (Miller 2007 Miller, D. 2007. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar], 23) and morality not always overruling. Then again, it could also be the case that CE theorizing itself shows moral shortcomings in this respect. Either way, the specific arguments of CE theorists must be addressed, too.

My thesis will be that leading, EU-centred CE is morally flawed for uncritically presupposing the fundamental acceptability of the EU as a project that actually clashes with cosmopolitan justice. I will offer a threefold argument for this thesis. First, morally, cosmopolitanism is to be understood as a particularism-critical position that, as a result, includes an emphasis on global distributive justice. Thus, here I explain what, more exactly, I take moral cosmopolitanism to mean. Second, from this moral cosmopolitan perspective, the EU is unjust for epitomizing ‘enlarged particularism’. Thus, turning to the centre of prevailing CE, I argue that the EU is incompatible with cosmopolitan justice as explained in the first argument. Third, the main social-theoretical and political-theoretical views of CE are unduly conservative for neglecting – neither acknowledging nor refuting – cosmopolitan justice while taking the EU’s basic defensibility as obvious. Thus, I complete my CE critique by showing that these views display no awareness of the tension between the EU and cosmopolitan justice, but actually and unconvincingly endorse the former at the expense of the latter. I will conclude by suggesting that CE could only be an ‘idealistically utopian’, radically bottom-up view that advocates EU de-integration in favour of Europe-wide cooperation for a world more just in a cosmopolitan sense. Thus, I propose that CE should abandon its EU-centredness by becoming a cosmopolitan movement ‘from below’. Overall, without offering a full independent defence of moral cosmopolitanism, I argue that cosmopolitans should reject ‘cosmopolitan Europe’ insofar as that is EU-based. read all

fonte:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16544951.2017.1291566